linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] vsock_test: skip read() in test

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190822100835.7u27ijlaydk72orv@steredhat>
Date:   Thu, 22 Aug 2019 12:08:35 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@...are.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] vsock_test: skip read() in test_stream*close
 tests on a VMCI host

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 09:32:03AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 05:25:40PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > When VMCI transport is used, if the guest closes a connection,
> > all data is gone and EOF is returned, so we should skip the read
> > of data written by the peer before closing the connection.
> 
> All transports should aim for identical semantics.  I think virtio-vsock
> should behave the same as VMCI since userspace applications should be
> transport-independent.

Yes, it is a good point!

> 
> Let's view this as a vsock bug.  Is it feasible to change the VMCI
> behavior so it's more like TCP sockets?  If not, let's change the
> virtio-vsock behavior to be compatible with VMCI.

I'm not sure it is feasible to change the VMCI behavior. IIUC reading the
Jorgen's answer [1], this was a decision made during the implementation.

@Jorgen: please, can you confirm? or not :-)

If it is the case, I'll change virtio-vsock to the same behavior.


Thanks,
Stefano

[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/847998/#1831400